SHRI DIPAK GUNVANTRAI PATEL (HUF),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(2),, AHMEDABAD

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

On facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has grossly erred in sustaining the impugned addition of Rs. 8,11,020/- on account of cash deposit in bank account without giving independent finding.”

In this case, return of income declaring income of Rs. 3,89,067/- was filed on 8th December, 2010. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) of the act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed that as per the information available on the record, the assessee has made cash deposit exceeding Rs. 10 lacs on various dates in the bank account maintained with Yes Bank at C.G. Road, Ahmedabad. Therefore, the assessee was show caused to explain the source cash deposit of Rs. 33,19,000/-. The details of aforesaid cash deposit appearing in the bank account is reproduced as under:- Date on which cash Amount deposited (Rs.) deposited 04/04/2009 70,000/- 16/05/2009 3,00,000/- 01/06/2009 2,40,000/- 29/09/2009 4,00,000/- 05/10/2009 2,20,000/-

Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the addition by observing as under:- “2.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case in the light of submissions made by the appellant, the arguments taken by the assessing officer & material available on records. It is the case of the appellant that the Id. A O has not appreciated the facts of the case correctly. It is submitted that A O has taken wrong figures of deposit in the bank account at Rs. 33,19,000/- as the same was Rs. 28,20,000/-. The appellant also attempted to file some evidences comprising photo copy of sale deed, confirmations etc. of two parties so as to justify the cash deposits. Accordingly, a remand report was called for from A O vide this office letter No CIT(A)-XVI/Remand Report/DGP/2012-13 dt 17-12- 2013. The A O submitted his remand report vide letter No ITOAA/d.10(2)/Remand Report/DGP-HUF/2013-14 dt 27-12-2013. In the impugned remand report, the A O submitted that there is no controversy regarding the amount of deposit as the same stood at Rs. 33,19,000/-. (inclusive of amount of Rs. 4,99,000/- deposited on 4-11-2009). The A O submitted that the appellant was given sufficient opportunities to explain the sources of cash deposits and therefore the evidences now requested for admission cannot be admitted. In its counter, the appellant has again tried to find fault with the observations of the A O by raising certain technical issues. The additional evidences which are now requested for admission cannot be admitted as no written request has been made by the appellant under Rule 46A. It is a settled law that additional evidence can only be admitted by the CIT(A), subject to satisfaction of all accompanying conditions, provided a written request is made. In the instant case, no such request was made and therefore the impugned evidences cannot be admitted. Without prejudice to the above, it is also noted that the Id A O has pointed out in its remand report that even the impugned additional evidences suffer from serious discrepancies and deficiencies. Consequently, as the I.T.A No. 1696/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 5 sources of cash deposit of Rs. 8,11,020/- remains unexplained the addition made by the Id A O is confirmed and the ground of appeal raised is dismissed.”

During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the assessee has filed revised grounds of appeal stating that the additional evidences under rule 46A of the IT rule, 1962 was not admitted by the ld. CIT(A) without any justification. He further contended that the ld. CIT(A) has ignored this fact that assessing officer had not allowed proper opportunity to explain the aforesaid addition. On the other hand, ld. departmental representative supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before us, ld. counsel has also furnished a paper book containing information on submission made before the assessing officer and ld. CIT(A), and copy of submission made for admitting additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A) etc.

We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel that assessee was not asked to furnish evidences in respect of source of deposit claimed by the assessee from agriculturists and cash in hand. We have gone through the paper book filed by the assessee particularly page no. 8 to 152 regarding additional evidences filed before the ld. CIT(A).We observed that assessee has placed corresponding evidences pertaining to sources of cash of Rs. 8,11,020/- which remained to be examined by the assessing officer. The ld. CIT(A) has declined to admit the additional evidences under rule 46A stating that assessee has not made a written request. In this connection, we have noticed

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27-11-2017 (RAJPA L YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 27/11/2017